[RedTn.SSR]

I've been reading some posts from people who are holding off on buying the current SSR until the new model is offered with the 6.0 motor because it will be much faster. From my experience with the 6.0 motor there isn't that much difference between the 2 motors. I've owned a 2001 GMC Sierra C-3 with the 6.0 motor, 325 hp, 3:73 gears for over 3 yrs. and have lots of friends with the 5.3 motors and mine really isn't that much fasterthan theirs. It's better at hauling or pulling a load but the quarter mile times are about the same at 15.7 to 15.9. The 2004 Chevrolet Silverado SS has the 6.0 with 345 hp., 4:10 gears, weighs a tad more than the SSR at 5,013 lbs., and their quarter mile times are in the 15.0 to 15.2 range. At this time that is biggest amt. of hp GM has put into the 6.0. They could tweak it some more to gain additional hp for the SSR but at 4,760 lbs. it needs a Chevy big block 502 cu. in. motor to be considered FAST by today's standards. I didn't buy my SSR for speed and am very content with it the way it is but I hate to see potential buyers waiting on the sidelines for this "magical bullet" (the 6.0 motor) and then are disappointed when they see that the 6.0 doesn't turn the SSR into a real road rocket. It's a good motor, just not enough oomph to make the SSR much faster than the current 5.3 motor does. Of course this is just my opinion and I could be wrong!

 

[QWKSSR]

I think the 6.0 is going be a waste. Back in the 80's chevy came out with SS454 half ton truck and they were a joke, all they did was smoke the tires and use twice the gas. I know first hand , sold the truck i had and really liked to get the new super kool SS454 only to be disappointed and waste alot of money to go back to what i had.

 

[SSRedRod]

I'm with you all the way. Believe the answer for speed is probably the magnacharger for this 5.3L. So afraid to ruin that beautiful exhaust note, though.

 

[QWKSSR]

I am suppose to be getting my magnacharger next week and i'll have all the power i need. I have installed them on chevy trucks with the 5.3 and it makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Flassh]

I'm more interested in the 6 speed than the 6.0 - if the 6 speed is available with the 5.3, that would probably work for me as well, but it seems the two are linked in all the posts so far. I really liked my small block Vette - thought the 454s were a bit nose heavy, and I suspect the same with the 6 l - I believe the difference is about 200 lbs.

 

[RedTn.SSR]

Weight of 6.0.

Flassh, Actually the 6.0 motor is the same small block that the 5.3 utilizes. The 5.3 is 327 cu. in. and the 6.0 is the same block bored to a 366 cu. in. If they use the same block (Aluminum) that's in our current SSR, bore it to the 6.0, 366 cu. in. specs., it should actually weigh just about exactly the same or a bit less due to the boring out of the cylinders. It also has the same external configurations as to size and dimensions so fitting it to the engine compartment would be no problem. I agree totally that the 6 spd. would be a real plus for those that like a manual tranny. The Tremec T-56, close-ratio 6-spd. GM uses in the Corvette, new GTO, and the Cadillac CTS-V, is one fine transmission. The shifter is a bit balky but GM is hopefully working to correct that small problem. The appeal of a 6-spd. manual transmission would be more of a incentive for me to trade my 2003 SSR for a 2005 model than the 6.0 motor availability.

 

[Zainossr]

Although it is really not important, the 5.3 is actually a 325 cu. in. and the 6.0 is not a 366 either. I don't mean to nitpic but thought you would like to know.

 

[RedTn.SSR]

Give the Man a Cigar.

Zainossr, Yes, I was aware that technically the 5.3 is 325 cu. in. and the 6.0 is 364.3 cu. in. For some reason it has become common for 5.3 and 6.0 owners to call them the 327 motor and the 366 motor even though that's not the case. Maybe because Chevrolet did, in the past, produce a 327 small block and a 366 big block motor. One figure I don't have is the difference in weight between the 5.3 cast iron block and the 5.3 aluminum block that's in the SSR. Do you know what the difference in weight is?

 

[Flassh]

I was basing my guess on the weight difference on the article in Truck Builder, featuring the 6 liter lowered yellow/purple SSR that GM was showing. They were using an aluminum 6 l engine and the beefier 4L65 transmission. That SSR was 200 lbs heavier than stock, and as far as I know, the production 6 l for the SSR will be a cast iron block - I'd like it if Freezer or Morty could confirm or correct that. So I was guessing that the cast iron 6 l (with aluminum heads) would be at least 200 lbs heavier than the aluminum 5.3

I definitely want the 6 speed, and I still plan to do some work on the rear end (airbags within the rear coils, and a real hidden hitch with some tow capacity instead of the toy piece that comes stock. The 6 l would definitely be stronger tow engine.

I'd be putting less than 300 lbs of weight on the tongue, so tire capacity isn't much of an issue. The frame/engine/transmission are the same as a Trailblazer EXT, which has a 7200 lbs tow capacity.

 

[SSR#10820]

Difference in Weight

I read that the weight of the cast iron 6.0 liter will be 100 lbs more than the aluminum 5.3 liter.

 

[Flassh]

Hey, RedTNSSR - I just noticed you have a 67 GTO - of all the toys I had, it's about the only one I really miss.

 

[Nomadkenn]

I've been reading some posts from people who are holding off on buying the current SSR until the new model is offered with the 6.0 motor because it will be much faster. From my experience with the 6.0 motor there isn't that much difference between the 2 motors. I've owned a 2001 GMC Sierra C-3 with the 6.0 motor, 325 hp, 3:73 gears for over 3 yrs. and have lots of friends with the 5.3 motors and mine really isn't that much fasterthan theirs. It's better at hauling or pulling a load but the quarter mile times are about the same at 15.7 to 15.9. The 2004 Chevrolet Silverado SS has the 6.0 with 345 hp., 4:10 gears, weighs a tad more than the SSR at 5,013 lbs., and their quarter mile times are in the 15.0 to 15.2 range. At this time that is biggest amt. of hp GM has put into the 6.0. They could tweak it some more to gain additional hp for the SSR but at 4,760 lbs. it needs a Chevy big block 502 cu. in. motor to be considered FAST by today's standards. I didn't buy my SSR for speed and am very content with it the way it is but I hate to see potential buyers waiting on the sidelines for this "magical bullet" (the 6.0 motor) and then are disappointed when they see that the 6.0 doesn't turn the SSR into a real road rocket. It's a good motor, just not enough oomph to make the SSR much faster than the current 5.3 motor does. Of course this is just my opinion and I could be wrong!

I really believe what most people want is the new 2005 Corvette 6.0 which puts out 400 hp! Now that would really make this thing sing! :flag

 

[Nomadkenn]

Although it is really not important, the 5.3 is actually a 325 cu. in. and the 6.0 is not a 366 either. I don't mean to nitpic but thought you would like to know.

I agree, it really is not important but according to my Engineers' Manual a 5.3 L is really a 323.41 in3 and a 6.0 L is really a 366.12 in3. :flag

 

[CASEY]

Corvette 6.0 Motor

Is there any chance GM will ever use the Corvette 6.0 in the SSR?

 

[nostoc]

Ls6?

CASEY,

I'd be surprised if th C06 Vette engine would fit the SSR, but there is indication GM is intending a 6.0 in future SSRs. Probably a Vortec 6000.

#1692

 

[Nomadkenn]

I hope so! Now that will be one GREAT engine!

 

[cruzned]

I am totally happy with the 5.3. Any more horsepower and I would fish tail like crazy on the autocross turns. This is by far the best combination of rubber, torque, and HP in a vehicle for what I want. Homerun Chevy!!!!!! I love this truck the way it is....especially since my tail lights are now fixed :jester